Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' line largely repeats structured data. It adds the aggregation semantics and the endpoint path, but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or how the aggregation is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the read-only and endpoint details. No wasted words and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a fully-described 6-parameter schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool. The main gap is the absent output schema: since the return format (aggregated counts bucketed per dimension value) is never described, the agent must infer the response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (from, to, filter, pageSize, dimension, currentPage) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for dimension. The description adds only the high-level notion of date-range plus dimension grouping, which is baseline-level value at this coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (aggregated play analytics for videos), scope (date range), and grouping behavior (by a dimension), plus the underlying endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling apivideo_get_live_stream_analytics by scoping to videos, but never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the specificity of the purpose — an agent can infer this is for aggregated play metrics rather than raw video data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing between this and apivideo_get_live_stream_analytics.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.